Madras High Court
Senthilkumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 3 April, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
1.Senthilkumar
2.Mani
3.Ponnuthai ... Petitioners/
Appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 3
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Kujiliyamparai Police Station,
Dindigul District.
Crime No.132 of 2005. ... Respondent/
Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the
records from the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Dindigul in C.A.No.24 of 2011, dated 02.03.2017, confirming the
Judgment made in S.C.No.23 of 2007, dated 08.07.2011 on the file
of the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindigul and set
aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Andiraj
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
ORDER
This revision has been filed to set aside the order passed
by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul in
C.A.No.24 of 2011, dated 02.03.2017, confirming the Judgment
made in S.C.No.23 of 2007, dated 08.07.2011 on the file of the
learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindigul.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased got
married the first accused on 28.06.2004. During the marriage, they
were presented one sovereign of earring, three sovereigns of chain,
½ sovereign of coin and ½ sovereign ring to the first accused and
household articles were presented as dowry. During the marriage,
the parents of the deceased also assured to present a two-wheeler
in favour of the first accused. After the marriage, all the accused
persons always used to scold her that she did not know house-made
work, cultivation and not even grazing the cattle. They also
demanded more dowry by cash from her parents. Due to the said
dowry demand, they harassed her. Even the next day of their
marriage, the accused harassed the deceased to make a demand for
a motorcycle for the first accused and also demanded 50% from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
marriage presentation. Thereafter, the parents of the deceased
presented a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the deceased and advised her to
live with the first accused. Again the first accused demanded a
two-wheeler, and he also had beaten her, due to which, she
sustained an injury on her thigh. He also threatened her not to
disclose the quarrel and the injuries sustained by her to her parents
and had driven out from the matrimonial home on 13.05.2005.
Thereafter, the parents of the deceased consoled her and promised
to purchase a two-wheeler and send her back to the matrimonial
home. Again the first accused quarrelled with her and, as such, she
was instigated to commit suicide. Therefore, on the same day night,
namely on 13.05.2005 at about 10.30 p.m., she herself set ablaze
on her own and succumbed to injuries. Hence, the complaint. On
receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in
Crime No.132 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 498(A),
304(b) and 306 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the
respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken
cognizance by the trial Court.
3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution
had examined P.W.1 to P.W.21 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
the side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and no documents
were marked.
4.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court found the first accused guilty for the offences under
Sections 498(A) and 304(b) of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for three years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo one month Simple
Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of
I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for seven years
Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section
304(b) of I.P.C and found accused Nos.2 and 3 guilty for the offence
under Section 498(A) of I.P.C him and sentenced them to undergo
imprisonment for three years Rigorous Imprisonment each and
imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default, to undergo one
month Simple Imprisonment each for the offence punishable under
Section 498(A) of I.P.C and acquitted Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the
offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed
confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would submit that the prosecution though examined independent
witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of the
prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case
beyond any doubt. P.W.1 to P.W.3 are none other than the mother,
brother and sister-in-law of the deceased and they are interested
witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution cannot rely upon their
testimony. There is absolutely no evidence to show that soon before
the death of the deceased, the deceased was subjected to cruelty
and harassment by the first accused. Even according to the case of
the prosecution, at the time of occurrence, the first accused was not
present, and he had gone to watch drama. After the occurrence, all
three accused persons were present in the Police Station. If at all
the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty or any harassment,
they would not have been present in the Police Station. Accused
Nos.2 and 3 were residing next to the house of the first accused.
Therefore, Accused No.1 and the deceased were living in a separate
house. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were not committed any offence, since
all the allegations are bald, vague and general in nature. No specific
allegation was made as against the petitioners herein in order to
prove the charge under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
offence under Section 304(b) of I.P.C is not at all attracted as
against the first accused. Now, the first accused got married and
gave birth to two children. That apart, if there was any cruelty or
harassment, definitely the deceased or her family members would
have lodged a complaint, but so far no complaint was lodged as
against the petitioners for any demand of dowry or cruelty
committed by them. Further, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.13 and P.W.17
were turned hostile. In support of his contention, he relied upon the
Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Vipin
Jaiswal Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2013) 3 SCC
6.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent would submit that the marriage itself
was solemnized on 28.06.2004. Immediately, before completion of
one year ie., on 13.05.2005, the wife of the first accused committed
suicide, due to cruelty and harassment committed by the accused
persons. There was demand of dowry and cruelty committed by the
petitioners immediately after the marriage between the first
accused and the deceased. Therefore, she was driven out from the
matrimonial home on the date of occurrence, namely on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
13.05.2005. She was advised by her parents who send her back to
matrimonial home to adjust with the first accused with a fond hope
of a happy life. However, the first accused was subjected to cruelty
and as such, she committed suicide by setting ablaze on her own.
He further submitted that neighbour of the first accused was
examined as P.W.9. He categorically deposed that the first accused
was also present at the time of occurrence, and he cried, saying
that she left him and committed suicide. Therefore, soon before her
death, the first accused subjected the deceased to cruelty and
harassment. Therefore, she committed suicide. Hence, the
prosecution categorically proved the offences under Sections 498(A)
and 304(b) of I.P.C.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
8.There are totally three accused, in which the
petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 3. The first accused
got married the deceased on 28.06.2004. During their marriage, the
parents of the deceased presented jewels and household articles.
According to the prosecution, immediately after marriage, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
accused persons demanded dowry to purchase a two-wheeler in
favour of the first accused. They also used to complain that the
deceased did not know about house-made work, cultivation and
even grazing the cattle. 4 or 5 days before the date of occurrence,
the accused persons had beaten her to get money from her parents
to purchase a two-wheeler in favour of the first accused. P.W.1 and
P.W.3 advised her to go to the matrimonial house and assured her
that they will arrange for two-wheeler. While being so, again on the
date of occurrence, namely on 13.05.2005, again she was driven
out from the matrimonial home to her parent's house to get money
to purchase two-wheeler. On that day, she came to her matrimonial
home at about 05.00 p.m., on 13.05.2005. Again she was advised
to go to the matrimonial home and assured that they will get a
two-wheeler. Unfortunately, on the same day, at about 10.00 p.m.,
she committed suicide setting ablaze on her own and succumbed to
injuries. It is also corroborated by P.W.2, who is the brother of the
deceased and P.W.3, who is the sister-in-law of the deceased. In
fact, the first accused had beaten her and due to which she
sustained an injury on her thigh. It was shown to P.W.1. Though
they did not lodge any complaint, the victim was deposed to live
with P.W.1 since the marriage itself was solemnized on 28.06.2004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
9.Admittedly, Accused Nos.2 and 3 were residing next to
the house of the first accused at the time of occurrence. On the
date of occurrence, Accused Nos.2 and 3 were not present. The first
accused was also not there, since he had gone to see the drama in a
nearby Village. There was also no evidence to attract the offence
under Section 304(b) of I.P.C, since the prosecution failed to prove
that the first accused subjected the deceased to cruelty or
harassment soon before her death. However, there was cruelty
committed by all the accused persons in order to bring money to
purchase a two-wheeler in favour of the first accused immediately
after marriage. Therefore, the prosecution proved its case for the
offence under Section 498(A) of I.P.C against all the accused
persons. Hence, the conviction under Section 498(A) of I.P.C against
all the accused persons is hereby confirmed.
10.In so far as the offence under Section 304(b) of I.P.C
as against the first accused is concerned, as stated supra, there was
no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by the first accused soon before her death. However,
the trial Court framed the charge for the offence under Section 306
of I.P.C also. Since the first accused was convicted and sentenced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
under Section 304(b) of I.P.C, the trial Court had not convicted and
sentenced him for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. When the
prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 304(b) of
I.P.C., the prosecution proved its case for the offence under Section
306 of I.P.C.
11.On perusal of the testimony and the circumstances,
the prosecution proved its case for the charge under Section 306 of
I.P.C and as such, the first accused is liable to be convicted under
Section 306 of I.P.C instead of 304(b) of I.P.C. Hence, the conviction
and sentence imposed under Section 304(b) of I.P.C against the first
accused is hereby set aside, but the first accused is convicted for
the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C and he is sentenced to
undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment. The conviction under
Section 498(A) of I.P.C against the first accused is hereby
confirmed.
12.In so far as the sentence under Section 498(A) of
I.P.C against Accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, considering the
age of the petitioners 2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 and all the
allegations made against them are general in nature and no specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
allegation against them, this Court is inclined to reduce the
sentence to the period which already undergone by them.
13.Accordingly, the conviction under Section 498(A) of
I.P.C against Accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby confirmed and the
sentence imposed by the Courts below is hereby modified to the
period which was already undergone by the petitioners 2 and 3.
14.In fine, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
The respondent is directed to secure the first accused to serve the
remaining period of sentence for the offence under Sections 498(A)
and 306 of I.P.C. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
03.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Dindigul.
2.The Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,
Dindigul.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Kujiliyamparai Police Station,
Dindigul District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.319 of 2017
03.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
